atheism

You are currently browsing the archive for the atheism category.

Christopher Hitchens has recently been diagnosed with cancer, as has been widely reported.  I hope he makes a good recovery.  And what seems to be the typical response by catholic commentators?

Christina Odone (The Telegraph) is apparently praying for him. Pointless, and mildly irritating.  But Francis Phillips (Catholic Herald – Perhaps throat cancer will move Christopher Hitchens to a change of heart) takes it just a bit too far.  Aside from this (I wonder how effective prayer really is!):

[...] if my own doctor had broken similar news to me I would have been shocked, so he has my sympathy; prayers as well – a more practical remedy.

He suggests Hitchins will have some kind of last minute conversion:

Perhaps visiting his doctor will be a wake-up call for Hitchens?

The brief article is patronising and offensive.  And check out the comments that follow the article at the Catholic Herald.  Over at The Independent, however, Tom Sutcliffe reckons Hitchens might be finding the opinions of the christian axis amusing (Tom Sutcliffe: Hitchens baffles the godly – again).

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tags: ,

The UTV website has re-presented Sophia Deboick’s excellent Guardian article on the recent Northern Ireland creationism fracas incolving Nelson McCausland and the Caleb Foundation (UTV News – Creationist claims in Northern Ireland).  It’s elicited a few comments so far, including a lone voice in favour of a creationist world view:

I believe that the first 3 commentators are seriously deluded. I also believe that the Bible speaks the truth and that God created the world. Science has not proven that fossils are millions of years old. thats just a theory based on very limited available knowledge. Science has stated many things to be fact in the past, only to change their “facts” as new “evidence” comes to light. They once told as assuredly that the world was flat. To believe that nothing created everything, takes a lot of faith indeed. I will stick with my belief in a creator. When I look at the beauty and wonder in the world, I find the evidence of an intelligent designer, compelling. In the future if I am wrong, what have I lost? If those who reject the creator are wrong, what have they lost?

This displays classic creationist viewpoints based on ignorance.  I would be very surprised if the evidence of the antiquity of fossils could reasonably be “very limited”!  I’d also suggest that a “flat earth” world view pre-dated science as we know it.  But the point I’d like to finish on is emboldened above.  This blog is entitled “Wonderful Life” because when I step outside my door each morning, I find myself (like the commenter) struck by the beauty and diversity of life.  I find beauty in the things I do understand of the natural explanation of the diversity of life, and a sense of excitement about all the things yet to be investigated.  So much better that living in fear of a non-existent supernatural entity.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tags:

The Reverend Dr Peter Hearty (of Platitude of the Day fame) has announced that signed copies of five books by Richard Dawkins have been put up for auction on eBay.  From the Platitude of the Day web page:

Five Richard Dawkins books, signed by the author and dedicated to the “Platitude of the Year 2009 winner” are now being auctioned on eBay. Proceeds of the auction will go to the National Secular Society.

The books were the prize offered for the most platitudinous Thought For The Day on Radio 4 during 2009. This was won by the Rt Rev James Jones, Lord Bishop of Liverpool and Bishop of Prisons, for reminding us of the contribution that Christianity played in solving the problems of Northern Ireland. The prize was forfeit as the bishop failed to attend the award ceremony during the Secularist of the Year.

These books therefore form a unique and highly collectable set. They were purchased by Roger Scotford and are being auctioned by Peter Hearty. The five books are:

The Greatest Show on Earth (hardback)
Climbing Mount Improbable (paperback)
Unweaving the Rainbow (paperback)
The God Delusion (paperback)
The Ancestor’s Tale (paperback)

More details on eBay.

The often incomprehensibly silly Andrew Brown (of The Guardian’s Comment is Free Belief section) has published a particularly dopey diatribe against the National Secular Society (Cherie Booth unfair to atheists? | Andrew Brown | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk).

As background, this follows a case Booth presided over a few days ago, concerning an individual who picked a fight while in a queue in a bank, ultimately breaking his victim’s jaw.  Booth handed down a suspended sentence in part (apparently) because the grumpy bruiser was religious.  This raised the ire of the National Secular Society, who’s president, Terry Sanderson has made an official complaint.  As Terry puts it:

Yet despite saying violence on our streets “has to be taken seriously” Ms Blair/Booth QC let Miah walk free from court, telling him: “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

Clearly, the NSS objection is that favourable treatment should not be afforded thugs on the basis that they hold religious convictions  Now Andrew Brown weighs in at the Guardian’s CiF Belief.  In a rather dim piece of illogic, he writes:

In Sanderson’s world, judges should say things like “Although you have no previous convictions, you are none the less a follower of Pope Benedict XVI and so unable to tell right from wrong. I therefore find myself compelled to impose a custodial sentence”

Nope, that’s not the point.  The person’s religious beliefs (or lack of) should not enter the consideration of sentence.  There are 646 comments as I write.  Should I bother?  One sceptic’s blog has complained to the editor about the article (Complaint to the Guardian reader’s editor) and Brown’s contributions to the comments thread, in which Brown seems to elevate the whole thing to encompass the NSS’s protest about our Government subsidising the Pope’s upcoming visit.

On which subject, my view is that Pope Ratzo visits either as head of his cult – in which case he can pay his own way but should be allowed to make his disgraceful comments about proposed UK equality legislation, or he can come as Head of State of the Vatican, in which case his costs might be subsidised by the state, but he should be rather more circumspect about criticising UK Government policy.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tags:

Apparently Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland is a “crackpot sitting in an attic” (Atheists challenge blasphemy law – Times Online):

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said that Ahern did not “have the luxury of time to deal with some crackpot sitting in an attic somewhere sending around quotes that are intended to be blasphemous. I would suggest this person spend ¤5 on a copy of Bunreacht na hEireann, which contains the reference to blasphemy being against the law.

Actually Michael Nugent has a sizeable Twitter following – nearly 14,000 followers now – so he’s some crackpot.  I hope this story will run and run, and I wonder when the first prosecution for blasphemy will occur.  However, apparently “A garda source said there will be an investigation into whether the publication of the quotes is against the new law”, so maybe a test case is looming?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tags: ,

The London Evening Standard (Catholics ‘forced film chiefs to scrap Dark Materials trilogy’ | News) reports that US catholic “spokesperson” Bill Donohue successfully led a campaign to prevent film makewrs from completing the Dark Materials trilogy (these thing do always seem to be trilogies).  The article quotes Donohue as saying:

“I am
delighted the boycott worked. Just as the producers have a right to
make the movie, I have a right to protest.

“The reason I
protested was the deceitful attempt to introduce Christian children to
the wonders of atheism in a backdoor fashion at Christmas time.
Everyone agrees the film version was not anti-Catholic, but that hardly
resolves the issue. The fact is that each volume in the trilogy becomes
increasingly anti-Catholic.”

He added: “I knew if we could hurt the box office receipts here, it might put the brakes on the next movie.

“I
also knew this boycott would work because once the word got out that
the movie was bait for the books, Christian parents would take their
kids to see Alvin And The Chipmunks. Which they did, in far greater
number.”

Bill Donohue crosses my radar rather more than is strictly palatable due to the frequency with which he crosses swords with PZ Myers (Pharyngula blog). While I’m not particularly a Pullman fan, I do find it rather pathetic that a major institution like the Catholic Church feels threatened by cinema.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tags: ,

The British Centre for Science Education reports that Truth in Science (?) Issue Creationist Text Book to UK Schools.

Interestingly, one of the authors of this book, Explore Evolution,  is the same Stephen Meyer who’s book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design was so enthusiastically reviewed by Alastair Noble, proponent of Intelligent Design.  The three authors are all Discovery Institute members; the book itself is published by the creationist run Hill House Publishers, who describe it as follows:

The purpose of Explore Evolution, is to examine the scientific controversy about Darwin’s theory, and in particular, the contemporary version of the theory known as neo-Darwinism. Whether you are a teacher, a student, or a parent, this book will help you understand what Darwin’s theory of evolution is, why many scientists find it persuasive, and why other scientists question the theory or some key aspects of it.

Sometimes, scientists find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events. Fortunately, even though we can’t directly verify these claims, we can test them. How? First, we gather as much evidence as possible and look at it carefully. Then, we compare the competing theories in light of how well they explain the evidence.

Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. In science, it is ultimately the evidence—and all of the evidence—that should tell us which theory offers the best explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence, and we hope it will stimulate your interest in these questions as you weigh the competing arguments.

Let’s be clear, there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution is true.  The dunderheads at creationist lobby organisations such as the Discovery Institute push this line of “it’s only a theory” without understanding (wilfully or not) the nature of the scientific process and the equally idiotic “teach the controversy” – there is no scientific controversy.  Sneaking these books into school libraries is deceitful, particularly given the language in the quotation above.

Read more at the BCSE page linked above.

From the Wikipedia page (Explore Evolution) – and this is a highly informative page that is well worth reading:

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism is a supplementary or enrichment biology text book written by a group of intelligent design supporters and published in 2007.
Its promoters describe it as aimed at helping educators and students to
discuss “the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory that are
discussed openly in scientific books and journals but which are not
widely reported in textbooks.” As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to “teach the controversy” it aims to provide a “lawsuit-proof” way of attacking evolution and implying creationism / intelligent design without being explicit.

The book is co-authored by three Discovery Institute members, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich and Paul A. Nelson, as well as illustrator and creationist author Jonathan Moneymaker and Kansas evolution hearings participant Ralph Seelke.Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. ( Melbourne and London), headed by creationist and butterfly photographer Bernard d’Abrera, is the publisher of Explore Evolution.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tags: , ,

A new poster campaign from the British Humanist Campaign that suggests people should try to avoid indoctrinating children into religious (and other) beliefs seems to have riled certain sectors of society.  The posters feature a couple of happy kids (of which more later) on a backdrop of ideologies and religions, with a slogan in the font and colour scheme familiar from the atheist bus campaign.

Please dont label me

The billboards seem to antagonise religious people (though notice the grey captions in the background aren’t restricted to religions).  For example in Befast, that hotbed of religious tolerance, we see in the Belfast Telegraph (Humanist poster stirs up religious storm) that

Reverend David McIlveen from the Free Presbyterian Church said: “It is none of their business how people bring up their children. It is the height of arrogance that the BHA would even assume to tell people not to instruct their children in the religion. I would totally reject the advertisement. It is reprehensible and so typical of the hypocrisy of the British Humanist Association today. They have a defeatist attitude and are just trying to draw attention to themselves. I think it is totally arrogant, presumptuous and sparks of total hypocrisy. I believe this doesn’t deserve a counter campaign. I will be expressing my public position on it in my own church on Sunday. I will be saying that this advert is another attack on the Biblical position of the family and will be totally rejecting it.”

I call this sad and pathetic.  It’s not telling people how to bring up their kids, it suggesting we might leave kids to make their own minds up in their own time.  How is it an attack on the Biblical position of the family?  Has the Rev McIlveen read the poster?  Elsewhere the press seems equally exercised.  Ruth Gledhill over at The Times (Children who front Richard Dawkins’ atheist ads are evangelicals) gleefully reports that:

The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.

Her satisfaction at this news is shared by a variety of evangelicals.  However the backers of the poster campaign point out that

“That’s one of the points of our campaign,” said Andrew Copson, the association’s education director. “People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts.

“The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.”

Well, exactly.  And it’s really quite telling that the religious axis seem to be so thoroughly paranoid that they regard any questioning of the indoctrination of children into any belief system – political and religious to be an attack on their superstitious claptrap.

It’s not just christians that take umbrage.  Also from the Belfast Telegraph is this gem:

Father-of-four Sheikh Anwar Mady from the Belfast Islamic Centre added: “We believe that every child is born as a Muslim. Religion is not given by the family, but it is a natural religion given by our God at birth. The role of the family is to teach the traditions of the faith. But that faith is implanted at birth.”

This chap is claiming every child as a muslim.  How does that square with his fellow-travellers in mystic mumbo-jumbo?

Tags: , ,

The link to this rather wonderful video clip was forwarded to me by Grumpy Art Vanderlay, my erstwhile cycling team-mate.  It features astonishingly dumb phone-ins from dimwits trying to outclass Austin atheists.  I think this is the perfect alternative to the Skeptic’s rather serious guide to debating creationists (previous blog articles).  It even features Ray Comfort’s ludicrous banana story…

Tags: ,

Well, it looks as though the splendidly anachronistic daily Radio 4 slot Thought for the Day will remain the province of a variety of a number of religious types (often spectacularly dotty). The Guardian reports (BBC rejects call for non-religious speakers on Thought for the Day) that the BBC Trust has in the face of serious lobbying from the Church of England (among others) rejected calls from Humanist organisations that TftD doesn’t breach impartiality by not including views from atheists, secularists and humanists.

The NSS president, Terry Sanderson, said: “Naturally we are very disappointed. This is a campaign we have been waging for 50 years, ever since Thought for the Day and its predecessors were first broadcast on the BBC. Every edition of Thought for the Day is a rebuke to those many people in our society who do not have religious beliefs.”

In contrast, of course, the religious establishment is delighted. The Guardian reports a Church of England spokesman as saying:

“We are glad that the BBC Trust has protected a unique slot in Radio 4′s schedule where religious views from across the faith communities of the UK can be expressed openly. Thought for the Day is highly valued by people of all faiths and none as a distinctive slot that, if diluted, would have become nothing more than just another comment slot.”

It would indeed be interesting to know whether it is indeed valued by people of all faiths and none. I mean other than as an object of ridicule. And why indeed are the faith-based opinions on current news stories of any worth whatsoever? And is it really the case that they don’t have other opportunities to pontificate away to their heart’s content “openly”?

Of course, there’s a brighter side to this arbitrary and unreasonable decision, continued meat for the very excellent website Platitude of the Day, which can now continue to present entertaining interpretations of the latest drivel emitted by representatives of a variety of faiths, often based on dusty mediaeval or bronze age texts purporting to represent the views of a number of Invisible Magic Friends (all mutually incompatible). Indeed the news is reported there as Glad Tidings:

I bring glad tidings of great joy to my flock of sheep. Thought For The Day will continue in its present form! You realise what this means? Yes, Platitude Of The Day will also continue in its present form.

I knew that the good, noble, principled, unelected people of the BBC trust would not let me down.

As a matter of interest, has a Church of Scientology representative ever been invited to the god-spot? After all, their batty beliefs aren’t really that much more batty than any of the others on display in Thought for the Day…

You can read the BBC Trust Press Release here.

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Bilbo Blogger

Tags: ,

« Older entries